Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA09397 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 7 Jun 2000 16:30:02 +0100 Message-ID: <393E23C3.D3A965D5@mediaone.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 11:28:20 +0100 From: Chuck <cpalson@mediaone.net> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Chuck vs Richard References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D31017458B3@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Vincent -
Thanks for bringing up these issues.
I originally got into this list because an old man I met at the Unitarian church
I recently joined insisted that memes were the way to go. As one other person at
the church whose intellectual judgement I respected (he is a physicist)
recommended the quality of his mind, I thought I would investigate, and that's
how I came to this list.
I come to new subjects with both fear and anticipation, fear because any new
subject, no matter how absurd it may seem, may overturn a lot of what I thought
I knew to be correct. I have, after all, gone through 2 major intellectual
epiphanies in my life. But both have immeasuarably deepened my understanding of
the world, and hence, I have my anticipations that I will discover something
that will further deepen my understanding. But it is not an entirely comfortable
process; hence my fear.
I have learned something from communicating with all of you, both in terms of
some new information I would not have otherwise encountered and in terms of
sharpening my own understanding of sociobiology. And so I extend my thanx to all
of you for spending the time to respond. I can only hope that I have served some
useful purpose for you in exchange.
It is ironic that the original event that propelled me to this list, however,
turned out to be an accident. The old man, it seems, is known by just about
everyone in the church (a highly informed and intellectual church) to be a bit
soft in the head. The physicist is presumably a good physicist, but his capacity
to understand of social theory is practically nill, even by his own accounting.
So -- there often comes a time when the the gain from relationships is no longer
worth the investment of time. I am a person who is strongly committed to finding
a general field theory, if you will, of human behavior as I am sure you've
gathered by now. That means that I insist on always discovering how my
understanding of a particular event is related to everything else I know. It's
an impulse common to atheist Jewish intellectuals - part of a whole subtradition
of Jews. So I don't feel entirely comfortable with people who are committed to
dividing up their perceptions into manageable pieces that are not necessarily
related to each other. Memetics tries to do this by positing that the laws of
memetics are somehow separate from biological evolution. My disagreements with
memetics - whether it be in the form of Richard or anyone else on this list -
really boil down to that.
That's the intellectual side of my perceptions. But a listserv like this has an
emotional side. I do get to have a certain affection for the people at the other
end -- even though, ironically, I would probably not have that had I met them
face-to-face. So I will miss all of you -- even Richard! You've all been great,
but it's time to move on to my book which will consume enormous amounts of time.
Best of luck to all of you.
Chuck
Vincent Campbell wrote:
> I think everyone on this list needs to be clear as to what level we're
> discussing these important issues.
>
> At one level there is personal opinion, which we are all entitled to, but
> also should expect to have challenged in a number of ways, especially in
> relation to demonstrable specialist knowledge, but not in terms of personal
> invective.
>
> At another there is awareness of arguments in a given field. In this sense
> many of us have offered references when requested, or even transcriptions of
> articles, out of a perception of their usefulness to the discussion. This I
> think is one of the best parts of such a list, and where possible is
> something we should all do when requested, rather than fob people off. At
> the end of the day, an argument that there's lots of reading but you can't
> be bothered to tell the list what any of it is, is a specious argument. We
> have a saying for this in the UK- 'all mouth and no trousers'.
>
> And, at another, there is professional knowledge. Clearly everyone on this
> list brings something different to it in this regard, with differing kinds
> of expertise. Surely our aim is to learn from each other rather than
> dismiss someone's arguments because of not accepting their qualifications,
> or the field in which they work? Darwin was an established and respected
> scientist who worked for many many years in the field before publishing his
> theory of natural selection (and then only doing it when he did because of
> Wallace), but Einstein was a postmaster who couldn't get a university job.
> Both changed the face of science and society, and who today would bother to
> criticise Darwin's delay or Einstein's lack of university pedigree?
>
> What I'm appealing for here is that where possible we stick to the issues at
> hand, and discuss things in a manner that avoid personal rancor.
>
> As to the question of the scientific method, don't forget that this isn't
> written in stone somewhere. The philosophy of science has some history of
> its own, and alongside the likes of Popper there are those who conduct what
> they regard as science (e.g. the 'relational' science of feminism). I'm not
> saying they're right, but surely both the notion of explanatory power ('why
> did these things happen?'), and predicitve power ('what's going to happen
> next?') are both scientific questions, and are clearly linked. Underlying
> those questions though, is the question of 'what is the process by which
> things happen/happended/are going to happen?'. If you get the answer to
> that question right then both the other questions can be answered.
>
> I have, of course, gone on about process several times before on the list,
> so perhaps we should also agree to try and avoid repetition of particular
> points, unless we come across new material to add to the debate (such as
> references to recent work on associated topics), otherwise we'll keep going
> round in circles, and discussions can then easily descend into name-calling.
>
> Vincent
>
> > ----------
> > From: Chuck
> > Reply To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2000 12:44 am
> > To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> > Subject: Re: Cui bono, Chuck?
> >
> >
> >
> > Richard Brodie wrote:
> >
> > > More dialog with Chuck:
> > >
> > > [RB]
> > > > Earlier in this same message you said that predictive ability was
> > > necessary
> > > > (but not sufficient) for a sound theory. Now you contradict yourself
> > by
> > > > saying that explanatory advantage is adequate. I'll assume you mean
> > both.
> > >
> > > [CP]
> > > <<You shouldn't assume that at all. My above quote refers to
> > "explanatory
> > > advantage" -- which is not equivalent to predictive ability although it
> > > includes
> > > it. Included in that criterion is its coherence or lack thereof with
> > > previous
> > > theoretical formulations and plausibility tests. Richard - I'm going to
> > pull
> > > an
> > > Aaron on you. There are books out there on this. What you read at MS
> > simply
> > > was
> > > not enough, and I'm not here to recreate in e-mail that which you can
> > pick
> > > up
> > > much more efficiently by reading previous works. I think Britannica on
> > the
> > > web
> > > should have some interesting stuff on scientific method.>>
> > >
> > > I've seen nothing in your writing to indicate that you have a superior
> > > understanding of the scientific method to me;
> >
> > Richard - sorry, but in your last e-mail, you gave solid evidence that you
> > would
> > not not even be able to recognize scientific method when you said straight
> > out
> > that you are not a scientist.
> >
> > > in fact, just the reverse. I
> > > think you engage in a bullying tactic, implying that you have studied
> > some
> > > subject for decades and that anyone who hopes to know as much as you
> > must do
> > > the same.
> >
> > I wouldn't need to study scneitific method for decades to understand
> > scientilfic
> > method better than someone who is admitedly not a scientist.
> >
> > > For your edification see the following succinct explanation of the
> > > scientific method from the sci.skeptic FAQ:
> > > http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html
> > >
> > > I'd be interested to see if you think it is wrong as well.
> >
> > I won't comment. It's simply not worth it. If you are convinced you
> > understand
> > scientific method, that's the important thing - for you.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > [RB]
> > > > I'm not a scientist. I'm a college dropout. I applaud your skepticism.
> > > > However, your ridicule of memetics is far from the open-mindedness I
> > would
> > > > expect from a skeptic. I would expect you to be chomping at the bit to
> > > > understand the cool theory that all these smart people seem to espouse
> > but
> > > > you don't get.
> > >
> > > <<I am only closed minded to anything that falsely claims to be
> > scientific.
> > > If you
> > > aren't a scientist, then how can you claim you are applying science?
> > That
> > > doesn't make any sense to me.>>
> > >
> > > I'm an amazing guy, Chuck. I can also type without being a typist, carry
> > > letters without being a letter carrier, and clean my bathroom without
> > being
> > > a janitor!
> >
> > Actually, I suspect a certain Microsoft attitude has rubbed off on you. It
> > seems like Bill and all FOBs think that because they have been so
> > successful so
> > quickly, that they must be able to do just about anything. That, I
> > suspect, is
> > one of the big reasons that Bill probably insisted on keeping a lawyer
> > that
> > would simply do his bidding. That's also why he and Ballmer appointed
> > somone
> > from MS who was a great programmer but knew nothing about accounting to
> > head up
> > MSN accounting - and hemoraged millions. And you, with only a few books on
> > scientific method under your belt, believe I must be bullying you because
> > you
> > absolutely must know at least as much as I do. I think it's wonderful that
> > you
> > have the balls to try to bully me despite your lack of knowledge of the
> > social
> > scineces because such confidence is the pinnacle of the American way of
> > life.
> > Hail to America!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > ===============================================================
> > This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> > Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> > For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> > see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
> >
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 16:30:41 BST